I'm in the same situation Jools and likewise interested to hear from the Getty photographers about their experience.

I'm not with anyone any longer, but I was with Tony Stone for many years. His library was the largest in the UK and I think it became the first major footstep in the Getty empire.

My experiences there (Stone) are pretty well likely to be mirrored everywhere these days; as things get larger the individual shrinks accordingly. Stone got me some truly excellent sales for a while, and mainly in France. I asked why my stuff couldn't be edited there instead of in London since my style clearly seemed to suit the French market more than it did the UK or other parts of the world. I was told this was impossible to do - everything went via head office.

As a consequence, and also highly influenced by the ending of my calendar business from whence came most of the stock material I supplied, my contributions fell away... in a last, fairly desperate attempt to refloat my stock interests I financed a model shoot on my own account. It took me over two years just to recoup the expense, never mind make a profit, which it never did produce. In the end we agreed to part company. I have sometimes regretted that, thinking I could have swapped horses and done something other than girls, but I knew my heart wasn't going to be in it. This wasn't just idle speculation: I'd aready been asked to stop sending atmospherics of Mallorca and the Med in general because the stock world was already drowning in such stuff. That was before digital and micro...

The truth, as I see it, is that life is now no easier for the agencies than it is for their suppliers (us) because the micro market killed the golden goose: simple as that. Why else do the majors buy out as many tiddlers as they can squash? But it's already too late: the happy snapper will never stop adding to the pile of junk nor to the number of nails in our collective coffin.

Heinous contract aside if you shoot high end model released business/lifestyle/concepts you may see a return for the time being. My work with them sits very firmly in the RM aspirational landscape/travel category and Getty have done OK but really no better per image per year than my other much smaller library. Couple that with their impersonal and wildly erratic editing policies and I was actually seeing better returns per shoot by subbing my images elsewhere.

When I signed I new I could get my pictures back out with their RM status intact but from this point on that's no longer the case.

Personally, I was nearly thinking of signing. However, you seem to be under the same boat as me with images. I do landscape, architecture and travel. A couple of weeks ago, I signed with an agency who specializes in architecture but also take travel and landscape. They have roots into Corbis and their contract is better terms than Getty.

Reading the links above, it seems clear enough to me that Getty intends one main thing: switch itself entirely over to RF as the basis of a future business model of simplified type: in other words, pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap and in the millions. Just like baked beans. Period. It would be a beautiful simplification for them or anyone else running a similar business.

It's one thing to fight for dignity and personal return on investment, but could Getty have a finer, more reality-based understanding of where the market is going?

I don't like to believe it, but I suspect that my own experiences recounted above are probably what's going to hit the lot of us, regardless of how good we are as individual shooters. The same seems to apply to general commissioned stuff, going by what I can catch from those I know still working: less of it about and a decline in real earnings per job. This latter all depends, of course, from where in your career you start the count.

As a relative newcomer to the business, I am trying to make my name through magazine articles etc.

I'm curious though as to how much people do earn through image libraries. I worked hard to get into PhotoLibrary as I could see that on their books were a number of very well known pros. Their entry requirement was 50 images but because so many people were trying to get into them they upped it to 100.

It took me 6 months of shooting various things to find enough that would please them. 6 months seems a long time but I don't have oodles of money to be getting a huge variety. They did annoy me though with their workflow. My contract was signed in February and despite word that my images would be online 6 weeks later, they actually put them up last week. And that's only because Getty has put the thumbscrews on them to clear their backlog.

I suspect that I'll sign the contract but I won't be submitting regularly to them. I only have about 3 - 400 images with PL, so no huge amount.

I think you got it in one Rob. The business interests of Getty and the contributors have diverged to the point of being irreconcilable. And Getty really doesn't need to care about it any more as reflected by their new agreement.

Jools: In stock (even at Getty) don't count on seeing any return on your images for at least two to three years - and it will likely get worse than that. Figure that lead time into your business plan and self market accordingly i.e. only put the work into stock after you have generated your own direct income from the images and or reserve some rights so you can self market locally. In the un-released travel market you'll be doing pretty well indeed to get into (USD) double figures per pic per year (all pics online / banked income per year).

I think you got it in one Rob. The business interests of Getty and the contributors have diverged to the point of being irreconcilable. And Getty really doesn't need to care about it any more as reflected by their new agreement.

Jools: In stock (even at Getty) don't count on seeing any return on your images for at least two to three years - and it will likely get worse than that. Figure that lead time into your business plan and self market accordingly i.e. only put the work into stock after you have generated your own direct income from the images and or reserve some rights so you can self market locally. In the un-released travel market you'll be doing pretty well indeed to get into (USD) double figures per pic per year (all pics online / banked income per year).

Tim, when I first joined with Tony Stone, the suggested return was around nine pounds sterling per image stocked... the reality of sales was that most images never sold at all; those that did sell sold either at around the mid-section of under a hundred quid (my cut), and the top earner went for over three grand, of which I got 50%. I'm led to believe that 50% is now considered a dream.

I have this feeling that stock has become a sort of last, desperate search for a haven for many of us. In my time it worked as a great second-line earner from the extras from commissioned work. This is obviosly not the case for all stock photographers, but I think many of us worked the system in that manner. Also, to give credit where it's due: Tony Stone reached the parts of the market that I didn't even know existed.

Curiously ( or not ;-) ) the sales slips never identified the final place where the image had gone. In essence, I never knew where I'd scored beyond the country and the type of useage; but ultimate client? never.

Jooles, be happy you're able to live in France! That's worth a lot on its own.

I think that you can lead yourself astray if you depend too strongly on other photographers' routes to success. Remember: two of your heroes started way before the coming of digital; they had a lot of book work to support part of their businesses; they were living (at the start) in much more buoyant economic times. They might not have felt that, but the ambience was, in general, healthy, a far cry from today. Michael Bouselle (should that be Bousselle? - can't remember) was also big into books and stock, and a wonderful lensman to boot. He had a magnificent eye for landscape and detail; particularly, I thought, tight detail.

I'm certainly not suggesting you don't try, I'm just advising you look for all the added strings to your bow that you can conjour up! In my own world, girls, I had to get out of fashion after many years and into calendar design and production to continue with my own photography and to start making real money. And, in my case, it wasn't an easy genre/option for most amateurs to ape: they could neither afford nor get the right girls. Landscape, unfortunately, is wide open to the world and its rotten little brother to exploit and gift away on the payment of a sop to pride.

Hearing from Getty the other day, if an image of yours is on their site you cannot market it yourself. That's shameful if you ask me as it is your own work!

As I said before, I'll probably sign the contract but I'll now divert a lot of what I do to another agency that I'm with that do allow me to market my own work.

Living in France has pluses and minuses.

Pluses: I have access to some gorgeous countryside and architecture. Just ripe for stock photography. As well, there are some well known mags in the UK that I contacted who have said that living where I do is beneficial for them. I think I may have struck lucky and some work will come my way.

Minuses: Like everywhere, it's bloody hard out here and finding opportunities is difficult.

As well as stock, I'd like to be teaching people too. But I need some hard cash to advertise properly.

Hearing from Getty the other day, if an image of yours is on their site you cannot market it yourself. That's shameful if you ask me as it is your own work!

As I said before, I'll probably sign the contract but I'll now divert a lot of what I do to another agency that I'm with that do allow me to market my own work. Living in France has pluses and minuses.

Pluses: I have access to some gorgeous countryside and architecture. Just ripe for stock photography. As well, there are some well known mags in the UK that I contacted who have said that living where I do is beneficial for them. I think I may have struck lucky and some work will come my way.

Minuses: Like everywhere, it's bloody hard out here and finding opportunities is difficult.

As well as stock, I'd like to be teaching people too. But I need some hard cash to advertise properly.

In my day, we couldn't self-market stock whilst we were with TS nor use any other agency for anything... a totally binding stock contract. However, I had negotiated a deal that my own, existing markets were to remain mine. But I did believe that as contracts went, and as agencies go, Tony Stone was as good as it got, and I could see their point about the dangers of overlapping stock in different agencies outwith their own. I was happy and flattered to get invited.

I suppose, in retrospect, that it was probably my own fault that I wasn't more prolific and too concerned with a quicker return than is realistic in the market that is stock. And so we learn: either one thing or another.

I checked with the other library that I have an exclusive contract with. They said it was fine for me to market my own work. I just need to let them know if someone asks for a restriction.A few days ago, I asked some questions of the Getty staff on the forum. Usually, they have been quite quick but fir whatever reason I haven't heard anything back.

As I said, I think I'll sign but unless I start seeing some kind of return on it, especially when they say how good they are, then I'm off!

With great respect, it can't be both an exclusive contract and yet another exists with another agency at the same time.

As I said, I understood TS's concerns, and the "let them know if someone asks for a restriction" element strikes me a something that can create a terrible amount of extra work or danger for any agency, and only a smaller one would possibly be willing to accept such terms with a very profitable supplier/contributor. But obviously enough, times seem to have changed somewhat.

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Here is my situation with Photo Library:

1) A list is sent off and they choose what they want. They get first shout at the list.2) Images are edited and FTP'ed to them in order to be placed on their website.3) NONE of these images are with any other agency as they are exclusive to Photo Library.

Now, what I have been doing is contacting magazines by myself and seeing if they are interested in my work. One of them recently purchased one of my images as a cover shot in 2012. But that image is not with any other library apart from PL.

I am direct marketing my images to magazines/ calendar companies etc. That is not conflicting with the library in any way.

The other library I have images with has only those specific images. No other library has them. Getty are not allowing us to direct market our own images to interested parties.

Hi Jools - it is a small world and I'm really pleased with the picture I made that morning in Marazion. Hope you got something more than decent too.

Thanks to Rob, Tim and yourself for intelligent, informed comment about the machinations of the market and Getty's sweeping all and sundry towards RF.....

Having been accepted to join Getty a few years ago, I baulked at their terms (such as the inability to sell images/prints or similars which are submitted) and refused to sign with them. Thus it rankles to be invited via a back door to sign to Getty on similar if not worse terms, via Photolibrary, who in turn had bought out the library I originally chose to join.

Those of us who are not profligate with the shutter finger and who are discerning of the shots we publish seem to be between a rock and a hard place. If only it were a (Tony) Stone and a hard place.....

Hi Jools - it is a small world and I'm really pleased with the picture I made that morning in Marazion. Hope you got something more than decent too.

Thanks to Rob, Tim and yourself for intelligent, informed comment about the machinations of the market and Getty's sweeping all and sundry towards RF.....

Having been accepted to join Getty a few years ago, I baulked at their terms (such as the inability to sell images/prints or similars which are submitted) and refused to sign with them. Thus it rankles to be invited via a back door to sign to Getty on similar if not worse terms, via Photolibrary, who in turn had bought out the library I originally chose to join.

Those of us who are not profligate with the shutter finger and who are discerning of the shots we publish seem to be between a rock and a hard place. If only it were a (Tony) Stone and a hard place.....

Well, I can certainly appreciate why they might want to embrace you into their fold!

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Here is my situation with Photo Library:

1) A list is sent off and they choose what they want. They get first shout at the list.2) Images are edited and FTP'ed to them in order to be placed on their website.3) NONE of these images are with any other agency as they are exclusive to Photo Library.

Now, what I have been doing is contacting magazines by myself and seeing if they are interested in my work. One of them recently purchased one of my images as a cover shot in 2012. But that image is not with any other library apart from PL.

I am direct marketing my images to magazines/ calendar companies etc. That is not conflicting with the library in any way.

The other library I have images with has only those specific images. No other library has them. Getty are not allowing us to direct market our own images to interested parties.

You're right: I hadn't got what you meant and on this new view, I see your point and can sympathize.

Thanks Rob. When I looked back over my post, I can see why you got a bit tangled up!

It's a pain in the @rse for sure and they seem intent on ruling the stock world.

And Baxter. Did I get something worthwhile? Yep. Plenty Oh, and because we were chatting I very nearly forgot to do a pano that I had planned for a magazine article. If you happen to be passing the shops, look for Digital SLR (was) User magazine in the July issue (This one).

The pano didn't come out badly but it's not something to write home about either!!!